This is why I love liberals. This is why I especially love self-identified intellectual liberals who opine on their pages often-contradictory values.
But every once in a while, they’re truly dumb and write contradictory things in the same editorial. On to the Virginian-Pilot!
These geniuses think that (A) we should stop using fossil fuels and (B) we should raise taxes on fossil fuels and rely on them more than ever.
Ah, yeah.
Point A
“Americans must decide whether our love affair with dirty fossil fuels is so ingrained that we are willing to endanger our economy and our most precious natural resources.”
Got it. Dirty fossil fuels endangers the economy and nature. Got it.
So, what does the Pilot think makes sense to generate money for new highways? Fossil fuels!
“McDonnell made a mistake in rejecting a gas tax increase as a gubernatorial candidate.”
So, in the Pilot’s world, we should increase our reliance on revenue generated by something they think we shouldn’t be using anymore. Not the most brilliant way to finance 30-year bonds, is it?
Never again shall I question why newspapers are in economic trouble.
See, normal people understand that when you rely on revenue from something for decades of financing, you generally shouldn’t take the position that we should stop that something from generating the revenue you advocate relying on.
But, then again, it is the Virginian-Pilot.
If the Pilot had written “We advocated raising the sales tax for transportation in 2002, and the sales tax was raised for transportation in 1986. We should ween ourselves from relying on gas taxes as a source of revenue and perhaps look to emphasizing sales taxes for roads,” at least it would’ve been a cogent argument. I would’ve still opposed it, but it would’ve at least made sense.
Supporting more fuel taxes while attacking fuel sounds totally at odds to me.
